Subject:
|
Re: Why these news groups were created
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.nntp
|
Date:
|
Wed, 22 Sep 2004 19:24:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
7187 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.nntp, David Eaton wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.nntp, John Neal wrote:
| |
Maybe the purpose of LUGNET shouldn’t be to create a community, but rather
be a resource center for all things pertaining to LEGO. Boards are useful
for communication among AFOLs, and many AFOLs have come to know each other as
a result of LUGNET, but I think the goal of creating a LUGNET community
might be questionable.
|
I disagree. To attempt NOT to create a community, you can’t really have
post-to-able boards, but instead something more like MOCpages or BrickShelf
where there’s room to post Lego creations, but no back-and-forth
communication. Hence, asking questions becomes up to the individuals
interested in the answers, and it’s probably going to continue in email or
some other venue. And if it’s done through email, lots of questions would go
unanswered, lots of answers would be repeated, and people who never thought of
the questions would never know their answers.
|
But you are talking about LEGO related questions, not personal questions. I
have no problem with LUGNET boards that very specifically relate to LEGO.
It’s all of the personal stuff that I am questioning.
| |
On top of that, without building a community you’d be a lot less likely to
start up LUG’s and LTC’s. They’ve been mostly founded because people met in an
online community, realized they were from the same area, and decided to get
together-- not because they went around emailing random Lego fans in the hopes
of finding someone near them.
|
But they didn’t get together because they got to “know” each other first; merely
that they were able to connect.
| |
| |
Well, therein lies the rub. Because very quickly, these groups begin to
relate to each other in terms of their specific nonLEGO interests, and the
thing that brought them together (LEGO) is forgotten.
|
Now that’s a little unlikely :)
|
You might be misunderstanding my point. Go through the newly created subgroups
in .people and see how many posts stray OT.
| |
| |
LUGNET quickly becomes just another adult/teen/whatever board that has
nothing to do with LEGO, even if the participants are AFOLs.
|
I think that’s absolutely fine-- even encouraged. There’s a reason that every
other board does that; it’s because it’s what people like. They like being
part of a community. They like recognizing names, being a recognized name
themselves, and having people they feel like they know and are safe talking
with.
|
I agree that relating to AFOLs off-topic is fun and I do it. I just question
that that is necessarily good for LUGNET as a whole as it relates to the world
community outside of LUGNET.
| |
| |
Many if not most of the .people hierarchy discussions quickly spin
off-topic, if they even started there at all. I think it is a mistake not
to put .people in off-topic, because our lives (for most of us:-), though we
may be AFOLs, are not on-topic for LEGO.
|
That’s actually something I’d agree with. lugnet.people could really fit
within lugnet.off-topic perfectly well. I don’t think I mind it being in its
own little area, since the root “.people” isn’t a sub-branch of a lego-related
area like .general.
| |
| |
Divorced people have a home in lugnet.people.support (and perhaps
lugnet.people.singles). It might be reasonable at some point in the future
to provide sub-groups of .support (or even .singles). Religion is a much
trickier one. Religion groups might well be appropriate, but how do you
decide which one’s to create?
|
ISN”T THAT THE WHOLE POINT? If you start splintering off sub-groups, it
will never end! Now is the time to pause and consider the ramifications of
having done this. It is like a pandora’s box, and I don’t see it as having
any benefit to the AFOL community as a whole (not to mention the youth).
|
I still don’t see the problem. As the community grows, the need for smaller
sub-communities increases. I’d say create subgroups as they’re needed or
requested (in earnest). Religious groups getting created? Sure! But I’d only
create ones that get asked for. .people.religion.christian.catholics,
people.religion.christian.protestant, .people.religion.jewish,
.people.religion.atheist I could see getting used. Probably even
.people.religion.islam. But is .people.religion.christian.amish necessary? I’d
doubt it. Gaist? Probably not. Bhuddhist? Hindu? Maybe. But worst comes to
worst if people want the group, they can ask for it, and if there’s enough
interest, it should get created. At least, that’s my take.
|
I think we might be on the same page. I would feel much more comfortable if
.people were placed off-topic, and it was only accessible by members over 18
(all of OT, that is). I enjoy and have participated in OT groups, but I am now
believing that these groups can have a deleterious effect on LUGNET, especially
among kids coming to LUGNET and to LUGNET’s reputation as being “kid-friendly”.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) Absolutely. The folks outside of my local LUG that I associate the most with are all friendships developed in .debate. I also wanted to add a comment to those who might wonder what does religion have to do with Lugnet: My previous post in this (...) (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
| | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) Yep! Any way you slice it, once you let people start talking to each other in a back-and-forth manner, you're going to get community development. If you let people ask Lego-related questions and give Lego-related answers, I guarantee you that (...) (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
| | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) I know that this is a small part of your argument but I fail to see the relevance of blocking parts of Lugnet to under 18 year olds. people under 18 can be 'Lavender' (I can't remember the acronym off the top my head!) Tim (20 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) I disagree. To attempt NOT to create a community, you can't really have post-to-able boards, but instead something more like MOCpages or BrickShelf where there's room to post Lego creations, but no back-and-forth communication. Hence, asking (...) (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
151 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
